ProofSnap study UDRP 301 WIPO cases, 2025

Half of disputed domains had no successful Wayback Machine capture in the year before the UDRP complaint

UDRP panels can check the Internet Archive themselves, and so can both parties. For this study, ProofSnap drew a random sample of 2025 WIPO cases and asked the Wayback Machine what it held for each disputed domain name before the complaint was filed.

48%had no successful homepage capture from the year before filing
70%had none from the 90 days before filing
39%had no successful homepage capture at any time before filing
Portrait of Radim Motycka
By Radim Motycka, founder and lead engineer of ProofSnap
ยท 6 min read

A ProofSnap study of 301 WIPO UDRP cases from a random sample of 2025 case numbers found that the Wayback Machine held no successful homepage capture of the disputed domain from the year before the complaint for 143 domains (48%), and none from the 90 days before filing for 210 (70%).

Finding 1

The archive is thinnest exactly when it matters

UDRP is decided on the papers. Section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 expects complaints alleging bad-faith conduct to be supported by evidence "such as dated screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves", and section 4.8 notes that a panel may, as part of limited factual research, consult "historical resources such as the Internet Archive".

The question is what that archive holds. For each case in the sample we looked up the latest capture of the disputed domain's homepage made before the complaint was filed. The longer the look-back window, the more the archive holds; the closer to the filing date, the less it has.

Only 14 of the 342 English-language decisions we read (4%) mention the Wayback Machine or the Internet Archive at all. Most panels describe the site from the parties' evidence alone. Where the decision records that the domain did not resolve to an active website, the archive had no successful capture before filing in 59 of 104 cases (57%). Some sites also block the archive outright: in a separate ProofSnap test of 190 sites, 29 did.

No successful capture of the homepage before the complaint Share of 301 disputed domain names, one per case
  • In the 90 days before filing70%
  • In the year before filing48%
  • At any time before filing39%
  • Domain not resolving to an active website: no successful capture before filing57%

Last bar: the 104 cases in which the decision records that the domain did not resolve to an active website when the complaint was filed or when the case was decided. Source: ProofSnap analysis of WIPO decisions and the Wayback Machine CDX API, November 2026.

Finding 2

New registrations are the blind spot

An archive captures a site only when a crawler or a user reaches it. A look-alike domain registered a few weeks before the complaint has had little time to be found.

Of the 133 domain names that, according to the decisions, were registered less than a year before the complaint, 62 had never been successfully captured before filing. Among the 53 older registrations, only 5 had never been successfully captured. The other 115 decisions do not state the registration date.

Out of every 10 new registrations

successfully captured at least oncenever successfully captured
47%

of domains registered less than a year before the complaint had no successful capture at any time before filing

9%

of domains registered more than a year before the complaint had no successful capture at any time before filing

57%

of domains registered less than a year before the complaint had no successful capture from the year before filing

15%

of older registrations had no successful capture from the year before filing

Registration age as stated in the decisions: 133 under a year, 53 older, 115 not stated. Source: ProofSnap analysis of 301 WIPO decisions from 2025 and the Wayback Machine CDX API, November 2026.

A case from the sample

The clone that was gone by the filing date

Whaley Products, Inc. v. Rahul Kumar (WIPO Case No. D2025-0996) shows what a complainant's own record is worth when the site goes dark. A customer inquiry led the complainant to a look-alike domain. A cease-and-desist letter went out. On November 6, 2024, nine days after the letter, the domain resolved to a copy of the complainant's own website, offering the complainant's products for sale. By the time the complaint was filed, the domain no longer resolved to an active website.

The panel ordered the transfer of the domain name based on the evidence of the clone site. In the panel's words, the fact that the domain name "does not currently resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith."

  1. A customer inquiry shows a product tag with the disputed domain name.

  2. Cease-and-desist letter sent. No reply.

  3. The domain resolves to a clone of the complainant's website.

  4. Complaint filed. The domain does not resolve to an active website.

  5. Decision: transfer ordered, based on the evidence of the clone site.

What to keep instead

A record that does not depend on the archive

When the archive has nothing, the complainant's own capture is the evidence. It is stronger when the page, the domain data and the time are recorded together, hashed and timestamped, so that a later change to any file would be detectable. This is what such a record looks like in ProofSnap.

Full-page screenshot, page HTML and visible text are kept as separate files.

Capture record

Sealed
Page
yourbrand-outlet.example/sale
Captured
2026-11-12 09:41:07 UTC
Time source
NTP checked, offset 0.18 s
DNS A record
203.0.113.24, two resolvers agree
Registration
Registered 2026-10-29 (RDAP)
HTTP response
200, response headers saved
Manifest
SHA-256 9f2c...b71e, signed
Timestamp
OpenTimestamps, anchored in Bitcoin
Illustrative example with a fictional domain and a documentation-range IP address, not a real capture.

Practice

Four steps around the cease-and-desist letter

None of this needs a particular tool. It needs the right order.

  1. Capture before any contact

    A cease-and-desist letter, a broker's purchase inquiry or the filing itself can make the registrant change the site or take it down.

  2. Capture again after each development

    After the letter, after any reply and after filing. A sequence of dated captures shows what changed and when. Section 3.2.1 of the Overview treats changes in website content, and their timing, as relevant.

  3. Record the domain at the same moment

    Registration data and DNS records taken at the time of capture tie the page to the domain name.

  4. Keep the originals and check the archive

    Keep the original files, not only pasted images, and review the full archive history before filing. Anything the panel or the respondent can find there, you should have seen first.

Method and data

How we calculated the figures

  • Sample. 400 numbers drawn at random (seed 20251112) from the 2025 WIPO case numbers 1 to 5,480. Of these, 354 had a published decision, 342 of them in English, and 301 stated both the filing date and the disputed domain name.
  • Decisions. Text taken from the decision PDFs on wipo.int: filing date, domain names, outcome, and whether the decision records that the domain did not resolve to an active website.
  • Archive. For each domain name, we queried the Wayback Machine CDX API in November 2026 for the latest homepage capture before the filing date. A capture counts as successful when the archived response is HTTP 200.
  • What it counts. Any successful capture of the homepage, whatever it shows: the disputed content, a parking page or an earlier owner's site. Subpages are not counted. Headline figures use the first domain name of each case; the file holds up to three per case (369 in total).

Download the data

369 rows, CSV, CC BY 4.0. Case number, decision link, domain, filing date, outcome and archive captures.

CSV file

Please cite "ProofSnap, Wayback Machine coverage of disputed domain names in 2025 UDRP cases" with a link to this page. Questions about the data: support@getproofsnap.com.

FAQ

The Wayback Machine in UDRP cases: questions

How often does the Wayback Machine have a capture of a disputed domain before a UDRP complaint?

In 301 WIPO cases from a random sample of 2025 case numbers, the Wayback Machine held a successful capture of the disputed domain's homepage from the year before the complaint for 52% of domain names. For 48%, it held none, and for 70%, it held none from the 90 days before filing.

Can a UDRP panel check the Wayback Machine on its own initiative?

Yes. Section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 says a panel may undertake limited factual research, including visiting the website at the disputed domain name and consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive.

Is the Wayback Machine reliable evidence in a UDRP case?

It is useful when it holds the right capture, and often it does not. In this sample, the archive held no successful homepage capture from the year before the complaint for 48% of disputed domains. A capture also records only what the archive's crawler received at that moment, which can be a parking page or an earlier owner's site, so check what each snapshot shows before relying on it.

Why are new domain registrations captured less often?

An archive captures a site only when a crawler or a user reaches it. A domain registered a few weeks before the complaint has had little time to be found. In the sample, 47% of domains registered less than a year before the complaint had never been successfully captured before filing, compared with 9% of older registrations.

Why does a website have no Wayback Machine copy?

Either no crawler or user reached the site while it showed the content, or the site blocks the archive. In a separate ProofSnap test of 190 websites, 29 blocked the Wayback Machine. Short-lived look-alike domains are the most exposed, because they can appear and disappear between crawls.

Can I ask the Internet Archive to save a page myself?

Yes. The Internet Archive's Save Page Now lets anyone request a capture of a URL, unless the site blocks the archive. It creates an independent public copy of the page, but not of the domain's registration data or DNS records, so it works best next to your own dated capture.

What should a complainant capture before sending a cease-and-desist letter?

The full page and the pages a visitor actually reaches, with the URL, date and time recorded, plus the domain registration data and the DNS records at the same moment. Keep the original files, then capture again after the letter and after filing.

Can I use the data?

Yes. The CSV file is published under CC BY 4.0. Please cite "ProofSnap, Wayback Machine coverage of disputed domain names in 2025 UDRP cases" with a link to this page.

Before the letter goes out

Capture the site while it still shows what you need

ProofSnap records the page, its HTML and text, the DNS records and the registration data in one package with SHA-256 hashes and a signed manifest. Anyone, including the respondent and the panel, can check it in the free Trust Verifier.

Have the page captured for you

Related reading

GuideUDRP complaint: filing, fees and evidenceThe three elements, the timeline and what to annex. TrademarksSpecimens, TTAB exhibits and UDRP annexesDated captures with the URL on the image. Brand protectionDocument counterfeit listingsCapture the listing before the seller deletes it.

Sources

Have the disputed site captured for you